Individual wrote:... which I think falls under the phrase "post-mortem continuance." That phrase seems like a synonym for reincarnation. There is continuance of causality, but not personality

I coined the phrase "post-mortem continuance" particularly to demonstrate what I have bolded in your post above. The words "rebirth" and "reincarnation" both suggest there is something to "re"... which seems to be the thrust of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's objections which I quoted above.

Indeed there is no "re", but that doesn't mean that the causal aspect of the four mental aggregates which continued throughout life suddenly cease to have corresponding effects, simply because what we conventionally call "death" has occurred.

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's concern seemed to be that views of rebirth and reincarnation had the potential to blind people from the reality of anatta.

Metta,Retro.

I agree, however I think it's also important to recognize how rejecting the existence of self can be a basis for annihilationism.

Individual wrote:I agree, however I think it's also important to recognize how rejecting the existence of self can be a basis for annihilationism.

How so? Do you have any sutta perhaps which back up this statement?

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Macavity wrote:Buddhadasa often claimed that the belief in rebirth is eternalism. For example, in his book on dependent origination.

Every instance of him denying rebirth I've seen is him actually denying atta. In other words, that the question of "Who or what is reborn?" itself is faulty.

I don't disagree with this observation, but I can't see how it addresses my point. Here in Thailand whenever I am in dialogue with the disciples of Acharn Buddhadasa they will argue that ANY kind of belief in life after death is eternalism. When I suggest to them that the Abhidhamma's idea of rebirth cannot be eternalism because no atman is involved, they will reply that it is still eternalism. Their argument for this opinion is that although each consciousness in the Abhidhamma's psycho-physical continuum endures for only a moment, the mental continuum as a whole is believed to be without beginning or end (unless we attain nibbana) and so the belief in it is eternalism. Their view is not of course in agreement with how how the Brahma Net Sutta defines the various eternalisms, but when they argue thus they correctly represent their acharn's critique of the Abhidhamma's continuum theory.

Macavity wrote:Buddhadasa often claimed that the belief in rebirth is eternalism. For example, in his book on dependent origination.

Every instance of him denying rebirth I've seen is him actually denying atta. In other words, that the question of "Who or what is reborn?" itself is faulty.

I don't disagree with this observation, but I can't see how it addresses my point. Here in Thailand whenever I am in dialogue with the disciples of Acharn Buddhadasa they will argue that ANY kind of belief in life after death is eternalism. When I suggest to them that the Abhidhamma's idea of rebirth cannot be eternalism because no atman is involved, they will reply that it is still eternalism. Their argument for this opinion is that although each consciousness in the Abhidhamma's psycho-physical continuum endures for only a moment, the mental continuum as a whole is believed to be without beginning or end (unless we attain nibbana) and so the belief in it is eternalism. Their view is not of course in agreement with how how the Brahma Net Sutta defines the various eternalisms, but when they argue thus they correctly represent their acharn's critique of the Abhidhamma's continuum theory.

Obviously, nothing is going to count against their position. Don't confuse them with the facts.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].

Sorry, not a "basis," but a corrollary (the two coincide). Also, to put it more clearly, he has, "There is no self," as a view, while still being egoistic.

To give context to what I mean: A person might state, "There is no self," because he is a materialist. Being a materialist, he observes that consciousness is a product of evolution and neurochemistry. On this basis, he believes there is no self. Because if consciousness is merely a byproduct of evolution and neurochemistry, if consciousness is simply a complex byproduct of brains, how can there really be a soul, or even free-will (an agent, a self)? Based on this, he rejects self. But in doing so, he also believes in annihilationism; he rejects rebirth, rejects karma, and doesn't understand dependent origination. He might think, for instance, that there's really no consequence for suicide since, once you're dead, you're dead. By this, he doesn't mean that the self is dead, but that "self" is an illusion created by brains and when these brains decay, that illusion will no longer re-arise.

To give an example of what I mean, historically I would make an educated guess that the Carvakas rejected atta too, on the basis of materialism, while still being annihilationists.

My point is that the rejection of self is not the litmus test for right view, with regards to rebirth. Although rebirth and reincarnation may blind people from the reality of anatta, people who passionately proclaim anatta can still be quite deluded. People who are deniers of rebirth are by nature the most passionate defenders of anatta.

We should carefully heed the two reasons the Buddha does not declare 'There is no self': not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is cocerned only with delineating 'a strategy of perception' devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i)because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that "all phenomena are nonself" (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since "all phenomena" includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

"Udayi, it’s from me, who recollect, one birth, two births,... recollect the manifold previous births with all modes and details, that this question about the beginning should have been asked. I could have convinced your mind answering a question about the beginning. Udayi, with the purified heavenly eye beyond human, I see beings disappearing and appearing in unexalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad states--- I know beings according to their actions. The question about the beginning should have been asked from me. I could have convinced your mind answering that question. Yet Udayi, let alone the beginning and let alone the end, I will teach you, when this is, this comes to be: when this arise, this arises. When this is not present, this is not, and when this cease, this ceases."_M. 79

Buddhadasa was very conservative in his teaching but problem is actually we have a pseudo-heretics flooding.

Last edited by zerotime on Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

zerotime wrote:"Udayi, it’s from me, who recollect, one birth, two births,... recollect the manifold previous births with all modes and details, that this question about the beginning should have been asked. I could have convinced your mind answering a question about the beginning. Udayi, with the purified heavenly eye beyond human, I see beings disappearing and appearing in unexalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad states--- I know beings according to their actions. The question about the beginning should have been asked from me. I could have convinced your mind answering that question. Yet Udayi, let alone the beginning and let alone the end, I will teach you, when this is, this comes to be: when this, arise this arises. When this is not present, this is not, and when this cease, this ceases."_M. 79

Good text. Thanks.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Can you tell me please - in which verse in in MN 79 "The Shorter Discourse to Sakuludayin" does your quoted text appear?

I am having difficulty finding exactly where the Buddha has said this.

mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Yes - they are using translations from Sister Upalavanna which is significantly different to the trusted translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi - which reads as follows:MN 79 verse 7"Udayin, if someone should recollect his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births....thus, with their aspects and particulars, should he recollect his manifold past lives, then either he might ask me a question about the past or I might ask him a question about the past, and he might satisfy my mind with his answer to my question or I might satisfy his mind with my answer to his question. If someone with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, would see beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate...and understand how beings pass on according to their actions, then either he might ask me a question about the future or I might ask him a question about the future, and he might satisfy my mind with his answer to my question or I might satisfy his mind with my answer to his question. But let be the past, Udayin, let be the future. I shall teach you the Dhamma: When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this,that ceases."

With due respect, to obviate falling into misunderstanding ... of the two translators .... I'd go with Bhikkhu Bodhi everytime.

mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Can you tell me please - in which verse in in MN 79 "The Shorter Discourse to Sakuludayin" does your quoted text appear?

I am having difficulty finding exactly where the Buddha has said this.

mettaChris

See paragraph 41. It reads a bit differently, and is likely a better translation than above, but it still make the point about rebirth being seen by the Tathagata and in para 7 by one who develops sufficient jhana, and ties it neatly to the basic formula of paticcasamuppada.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Actually Tilt ~ this is the post which is causing the comments. zerotime emphasising the two words "From ME!!!" in the 'quote'. Which are actually something the Buddha didn't say, but which came from the 'shoddy' or, alternatively, 'quickly and roughly done', translations of Sister Sister Upalavanna.

mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Chris wrote:With due respect, to obviate falling into misunderstanding ... of the two translators .... I'd go with Bhikkhu Bodhi everytime.

As any intelligent person would do.Thanks Chris

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725